"If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no rapport with us. We are therefore capable of knowing neither what He is nor if He is."
-- Blaise Pascal (Pensees, 233)
Ever since Galileo hoisted his telescope to the skies and shattered the myth of celestial perfection, science has relentlessly hammered away at the edifice of religion. Where once science served to explain the ways of God to man, it now explains away the need for God altogether.
Though zoologist Richard Dawkins may perhaps be the most famous atheist among scientists, no branch of science produces more exponents of atheism than physics. Steven Weinberg, Lee Smolin, Victor Stenger, Lawrence Krauss, and Stephen Hawking are notable examples of physicists who trumpet their view that science has not only falsified many religious claims about the world, but has demonstrated that when it comes to creation, no Creator need apply.
I entirely agree with the first part of their critique. Religious narratives about the past, present, and future of the world are indeed unreliable guides to the world, except perhaps as metaphorical inspiration. But has science ruled out rational belief in a Creator? I'm not so sure.
A brilliant essay by Paul Steinhardt appears in the current issue of Scientific Amercan. Every theologian in America should read it. I must hasten to add that Steinhardt writes not one word about God. Rather, he explains why he has come to have serious doubts about cosmological inflationary theory. Yet, I say again, every theologian should read it, as should everyone who is interested in the rational pursuit of knowledge.
Why? Steinhardt helps us grasp a fundamental truth: Infinity is the devil. Not literally Satan, of course, but a destroyer of rational comprehension. This is as important to religion as it is to science, and more than that, it may provide a bridge between the two. That is, it may help us to a more rational, less extreme conception of a plausible creator.
Infinity makes trouble in many arenas of physics. In classical theory, it pops up in the description of a particle, such as an electron, as a point. When physicists write out the equations, they find that a point particle has infinite inertia -- an absurd result. Infinity nearly wrecked the most beautifully precise theory ever devised: Quantum Electrodynamics, or QED. In certain QED self-interactions it looks as if the energies go all infinite, meaning they have no mathematical meaning.
Only a technique called "renormalization" could save the theory from itself. Renormalization is, as best I can judge, a highly sophisticated kind of cheating. The practitioner peeks at the answer nature gives and then crafts a mathematical patch over the infinity to closely approximate nature's answer. The Standard Model, used by everyone working in high energy particle physics, is chock-a-block with renormalization.
But let's push on to the case of inflation. This is widely regarded as the scientific best explanation we have for how the Universe got its present-day characteristics. Cosmologists puzzle over why it is so smooth. A God's eye view of our Universe in two dimensions would reveal a surface like a smooth wooden table top with an even dusting of galaxies and barely visible lines of grain. Inflation theory explains that within the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang, inflation pumped up the Universe from a nothinglike point to macro-ball of fury that continues to expand, albeit not as madly.
Inflation is textbook stuff these days. But Steinhardt says, not so fast, bubba. His beef is not with the data (they match up "exquisitely" with theory, he admits), but with the quantum dimension of the theory. The problem there is that old devil, infinity. If any inflation is possible, he notes, then infinitely repeating inflation must happen -- because those impish quantum variations that pop up randomly here and there cannot be constrained. "Eternality," Steinhardt laments, "is a natural consequence of inflation plus quantum physics."
When we speak of spacetime bubbles popping out of the "nothing" of quantum foam, "eternal" is equivalent to "infinite." And that's where the trouble arises. Inflation purports to be a scientific theory that makes testable predictions, and moreover, one whose predictions agree with observation. Beautiful, right? But then along comes infinity and puts the kibosh on a rational basis for those calculations.
"What does it mean to say that inflation makes certain predictions -- that, for example, the universe is uniform ... -- if anything that can happen will happen an infinite number of times?" Steinhardt asks.
The problem may be hard to grasp, because infinity has such a quixotic nature. Steinhardt explicates it beautifully, but rather than steal his thunder I will give you the simple example that blew my mind when I first started grappling with the infinite decades ago.
Suppose you have a number line. You are standing at zero. In front of you are all the positive integers -- 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on stretching to infinity. Now, I'm standing next to you, on a parallel number line identical to yours -- until I push a button and zap all the odd numbers in mine out of existence. Every even number in my line moves back a space, so that it now goes: 2, 4, 6, 8, and so on. Here's the weird thing. My line is still exactly as long as yours. I could push another button and reduce my line to just powers of ten -- 10, 100, 1000, etc. -- and it would still be just as long as yours.
Makes no sense, right? In short, whenever it pops up in equations, infinity produces weird, arbitrary, or incomprehensible answers. Steinhardt regards this as fatal to inflation theory. "[T]he oft-cited claim that cosmological data have verified the central predictions of inflation theory is misleading, at best. ... The truth is that quantum physics rules inflation, and anything that can happen will happen."
That last idea, mordantly known as the Totalitarian Principle of physics, has important implications for theology. If true, it implies that no rational theory can embrace all of existence. Mathematically, such a theory would come to grief on the shoals of infinity. Theologically (or indeed philosophically), such a worldview would be as empty of meaning as a screen of text in which every pixel is white.
Now, it ain't necessarily so. There may be a true version of cosmology that describes a rational universe -- perhaps one with so-called bounded infinity. Or, it may be the the universe has an undiscoverable rational structure. (For example, it may be something like a computer program that simulates infinitude but is in reality finite.)
But, it may also be that at root the universe really is absurd. Call it the Sartrean Principle.I would certainly call a universe dominated by the Totalitarian Principle absurd, but there are many other absurd possibilities -- perhaps infinitely many. In any event, a failure of the scientific project to rationally explain the universe would not imply "God did it." In fact, it would be bad news for believers everywhere.
If the universe harbors an endless sea of bubbles like ours, in every conceivable variation, then there can be no meaning to it all. Infinity won't allow it. We may be tempted to say that everything would cancel out -- that every "good" action would be offset precisely by its opposite "bad" action, and so forth. But we can't even have the slender, existential satisfaction of that knowledge, for, as implied, above infinity minus infinity does not yield a meaningful answer.
In short, then, Pascal may have had it right. God, if infinite, is unknowable. We can't even know if he's there. Yet, through the continued pursuit of science, we may yet come to a more humble, rational understanding of our existence, one that may even include a loving if limited, perhaps even long-gone, Creator.
Follow Clay Farris Naff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/claynaff
Matt J. Rossano: Are Infinities More Scientific Than God?
Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free ...
Also, I don't think Pascal said that. I know he said that it is better to believe in God, because if you're right, then you'll go to heaven. If he did say that, It's still not scientific. You don't start with an assumption that you like, then work towards it. Science does not work that way.
It's also possible that there is no creator. Did you ever consider that? Since there is currently no evidence of it, then there is no justification for such speculation.
Only human self-centeredness finds the notion of, say, infinite universes 'unsatisfying,' that's cause to our *linear* minds people leap to say, 'If it's not *the,* it must mean *nothing,* and that simply comes from assertions that are not true and not necessary.
something tells me you like jazz, because this article by you is a good riff.
For fun, go to youtube and check out Doodling in Math Class: Infinity Elephants. That is how infinity should be taught.
Cheers,
Clay
But causality as a modus is found deficient with QM, our deepest foray into how things are. Causality is part of a mechanical framing, and which fails with QM, infinities/singularities getting in the way of an understandable mathemetization of self and world. Things are more complex than our original attempt at framing self and world.
With QM, materialism, causality, determinism all fail, or are verified to be not totally fitting. Its rationality which has failed too as a description of self and world, as rationality is a synonym of causality, and is commingled with determinism, materialism.
The idea of the 'first cause' and its personification "God" are FAILS. Rationality leads to these two types of proposals, when the 'first cause' dilemma is encountered. All of this leads to the personal, direct exploration of mind and self as the next step... Buddhism, Yoga.
Lauri Lumby
Authentic Freedom Ministries
http://yourspiritualtruth.com
This is the crux of your article, Clay.
I think it might really be much worse than you think - Science ignores belief AND creators - it admits no deities or demons in it's calculations.
So - I feel the answer must be yes - Science rules out rational belief as an invalid basis for understanding the universe (in the first place).
With facts and evidence, there is no need for belief - that is the point of Science, and also why religion cannot abide it - Science requires critical examination of ideas and concepts - acceptance is based on the strength of evidence and facts. Rejection on the lack thereof.
It was Lahiri Mahasaya’s encouragement to persevere in meditation.
If you don’t invite God to be your summer Guest, He won’t come in the winter of your life.
Through delusion you are perceiving yourself as a bundle of flesh and bones, which at best is a nest of troubles. Meditate unceasingly, that you quickly behold yourself as the Infinite Essence, free from every form of misery. Cease being a prisoner of the body; using the secret key of Kriya, learn to escape into Spirit.
The yogic key will not lose its efficiency when I am no longer present in the body to guide you. This technique cannot be bound, filed, and forgotten, in the manner of theoretical inspirations. Continue ceaselessly on your path to liberation through Kriya, whose power lies in practice.
I am ever with those who practice Kriya. I will guide you to the Cosmic Home through your ever enlarging spiritual perceptions.
—from Autobiography of a Yogi
Clear your mind of dogmatic theological debris; let in the fresh, healing waters of direct perception. Attune yourself to the active inner Guidance; the Divine Voice has the answer to every dilemma of life. Though man's ingenuity for getting himself into trouble appears to be endless, the Infinite Succor is no less resourceful.
"As a householder-yogi, Lahiri Mahasaya brought a practical message
suited to the needs of today's world... His way of life, as planned by Babaji, was intended to be a guide for aspiring yogis in all parts of the world.
—Paramahansa Yogananda
Divine union is possible through self-effort, and is not dependent on theological beliefs or on the arbitrary will of a Cosmic Dictator."
Meditate unceasingly, that you quickly behold yourself as the Infinite Essence, free from every form of misery. Cease being a prisoner of the body; using the secret key of Kriya, learn to escape into Spirit.
Consider the mathematical term 1/(x-y). If we let x and y be equal, the expression has a zero denominator, so we say that it is infinite .Actually, this is a useful technique in finding errors in physics problem solutions; if possible numbers can yield a zero denominator, we look for a mistake—usually writing a minus sign where there should have been a plus sign, or vice versa.
Saying that there is infinite time available, does indeed allow for extremely improbable events to happen. For example, standard statistical thermodynamics says there is a finite (albeit ridiculously small) probability of all the molecules in my desk moving upward at the same instant. So if the desk exists for an infinite time, that will happen. (Unless standard statistical mechanics isn’t true in such extreme conditions!)
Beloved God, let the flowers of my devotion blossom in the garden of my heart while I await the dawn of Thy coming.
Dear Father, open all the windows of faith that I may behold Thee in the mansion of peace. Fling open the doors of silence that I may enter Thy temple of bliss.
Beloved God, protect the celestial temple of my mind against the entry of tenacious warriors of evil thoughts.
I know that I am responsible for my own welfare. Therefore I will discard all useless pursuits and idle thoughts, that daily I may find time for God.
My Heavenly Father, Thou art Love, and I am made in Thine image. I am the cosmic sphere of Love in which I behold all planets, all stars, all beings, all creation as glimmering lights. I am the Love that illumines the whole universe.
O Fountain of Love! make me feel that my heart is flooded by Thine omnipresent love.
I want Thee, O God, that I may give Thee to all!
Father of Hearts, awaken eternally the consciousness of Thy loving presence within me.
Divine Father, teach me to dive again and again into meditation, deeper and deeper, until I find Thine immortal pearls of wisdom and divine joy.
Vanished the veils of light and shade,
Lifted every vapor of sorrow,
Sailed away all dawns of fleeting joy,
Gone the dim sensory mirage.
Love, hate, health, disease, life, death,
Perished these false shadows on the screen of duality.
Waves of laughter, scyllas of sarcasm, melancholic whirlpools,
Melting in the vast sea of bliss.
The storm of maya stilled
By magic wand of intuition deep.
The universe, forgotten dream, subconsciously lurks,
Ready to invade my newly-wakened memory divine.
I live without the cosmic shadow,
But it is not, bereft of me;
As the sea exists without the waves,
But they breathe not without the sea.
Dreams, wakings, states of deep turia sleep,
Present, past, future, no more for me,
But ever-present, all-flowing I, I, everywhere.
Planets, stars, stardust, earth,
Volcanic bursts of doomsday cataclysms,
Creation's molding furnace,
Glaciers of silent x-rays, burning electron floods,
Thoughts of all men, past, present, to come,
Every blade of grass, myself, mankind,
Each particle of universal dust,
Anger, greed, good, bad, salvation, lust,
I swallowed, transmuted all
Into a vast ocean of blood of my own one Being!
Smoldering joy, oft-puffed by meditation
Blinding my tearful eyes,
Burst into immortal flames of bliss,
Consumed my tears, my frame, my all.
Thou art I, I am Thou,
Knowing, Knower, Known, as One!
Tranquilled, unbroken thrill, eternally living, ever-new peace!
Enjoyable beyond imagination of expectancy, samadhi bliss!
Not an unconscious state
Or mental chloroform without wilful return,
Samadhi but extends my conscious realm
Beyond limits of the mortal frame
To farthest boundary of eternity
Where I, the Cosmic Sea,
Watch the little ego floating in Me.
The sparrow, each grain of sand, fall not without My sight.
All space floats like an iceberg in My mental sea.
Colossal Container, I, of all things made.
By deeper, longer, thirsty, guru-given meditation
Comes this celestial samadhi.
Mobile murmurs of atoms are heard,
The dark earth, mountains, vales, lo! molten liquid!
Flowing seas change into vapors of nebulae!
Aum blows upon vapors, opening wondrously their veils,
Oceans stand revealed, shining electrons,
Till, at last sound of the cosmic drum,
Vanish the grosser lights into eternal rays
Of all-pervading bliss.
From joy I came, for joy I live, in sacred joy I melt.
Ocean of mind, I drink all creation's waves.
Four veils of solid, liquid, vapor, light,
Lift aright.
Myself, in everything, enters the Great Myself.
Gone forever, fitful, flickering shadows of mortal memory.
Spotless is my mental sky, below, ahead, and high above.
Eternity and I, one united ray.
A tiny bubble of laughter, I
Am become the Sea of Mirth Itself.
1) It seems a little silly to worry about a purely theoretical possibility when we really have no clue if we are even close to correct.
2) I am reminded of Einstein when his work in quantum mechanics led him to postulate quantum entanglement. He thought that the theory must be flawed because he believed that the universe couldn't possibly operate in the way that his counter intuitive conclusions said it operates. As it turns out, several decades later we were able to physically test the theory, and sure enough, the observations matched the theory.
In-tuition (direct self knowledge) tells that we have free will, for example... even though our attempts to mathematize ourselves have led us to consider determinism. It is counter rational from the pov of materialism that we have free will, but it is intuitively known that we do have free will.
It was counter rational from the pov of materialism (our pov that defines our thinking) that if you continued to analyse matter that you wouldn't get some ultimate tiny little balls.
It was counter rational from the pov of materialism that we would not be able to cleanly separate mind and matter in our deepest descriptions of how things are.
Either way, counter intuitive or counter rational, the analogy holds.